406:
when it comes to other GNG violations they do not care. Porn is in a sticky place on wiki as obviously mainstream sources won't cover it due to religious types and the only things that would cover it are tabloids or trade magazines which get put down as "promotional". Just seems absurd that over 600,000 people view a "non-notable" person's page, as someone who has an excel sheet full of tens of thousands of wikipedia bios that number is very high.
681:. As the nominator accurately notes, a disputable, technical pass of the applicable SNG is outweighed by broad failure to meet the GNG. When dealing with BLPs in sensitive areas, it's particularly important to keep in mind that such an SNG only creates a presumption that the subject is notable enough for an article, and that broad failure to meet the GNG ia generally sufficient to refute that presumption.
660:
into the category of common sense or an occasional exception. Common sense is that if some editors are using standard a, and other editors are using standard b, the project will be the victim. Editors have tried to change PORNBIO, and the community has refused. Your grousing is an admission that the topic passes WP:PORNBIO as per community consensus, and that you can't refute the evidence.
369:, like other SNG's, is meant to offer guidance about things that make it likely that a subject is notable. SNG's augment our general notability guideline, not replace it. She won the award in 2007 but there's a dearth of coverage in reliable sources in the subsequent decade and, since she's apparently left the industry, it's a dearth that's very likely to continue in decades to come.
866:
Since the DRV was closed as endorse and you were the only person arguing otherwise and your arguments remain based on your own understanding of the guidelines that no-one else in the world shares, I really do fail to follow what ever point it is you are trying to make. I also see that once again your
780:
The DRV raises other questions, one of which is why
Spartaz, who last I heard is an administrator, allowed the original RFC/AfD to remain posted in an AFD forum. Spartaz was also first in line at the DRV, and allowed the DRV to proceed even though the closing administrator of the RFC/AfD had not
659:
WHYN is not a part of the standard, and hasn't been for years. WP:N is not a content guideline...our core content policies take that role. WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and chronic grousing against WP:N's subject-specific guidelines does not fall
405:
for deletion the SNG relevant to Ice Hockey, would prevent it from being deleted with some chutzpah about "some sources" of newspapers briefly mentioning him playing.. I just find it funny that only porn get's editors with edit logs of literally months of only nominating pornbios for deletion, but
561:
No arguments for deletion. Article is sourced, so there are no competent BLP arguments. The GNG arguments are admitting that the topic passes WP:N, and they don't think their arguments rise to the level of IAR. Arguments to change WP:N and subguidelines have been rejected by the community. So
496:
total failure of GNG. It is high time we stop using a special carve out to keep an inordinate number of articles on pornographic actresses. Knowledge (XXG) has been heavily attacked for the inordinate amount of space devoted to pornographic actresses for years. It is high time we fix this poor
276:
I would actually nominate the Mike Murray article for deletion, if I had not already nominated another today. I would fully urge you GuzzyG to nominate that article. If you do I promise to advocate for its deletion. Knowledge (XXG) needs to hold more to the reliable sources rule. If we require
885:
says, "Even if ten editors state an article should be deleted, and one editor states the article should be kept, but the one who wants it kept gives a good argument citing policy, while the other ten give none, this is sufficient grounds for keeping an article."
736:
which clearly demonstrates the point that pornbio doesn’t trump gng and that if you can’t source it, a technical pass is no defense. On that basis the keep votes so far are non-policy based and should not be given as much weight in the close as the delete votes.
750:
The DRV couldn't have discussed sourcing if they wanted to, because (1) the article considered at the RFC/AFD had been deleted and was not temp undeleted for the DRV, and (2) the RFC/AFD closer did not identify BLP issues in the close.
880:
It was your choice to "bring in" the DRV, and now the DRV discussion has moved to the rule of law. It is a legitimate question as to why both the AfD and DRV processes continued without administrative intervention.Take a look at what
765:
As shown at the DRV, WP:N places GNG on a level playing field with PORNBIO. It was also shown in the DRV that a defender of GNG could not explain how to apply the standard, meaning that GNG is as much vaporware as it is a standard.
636:
AfDs, my impression is that the SNG in question is largely not credible. That is, a technical pass at the SNG does not necessarily mean that the subject would have garnered sufficient coverage for a stand-alone bio article; see
226:
Despite winning a best new starlet award we are left with no meaninful sources as required for a blp. Technical SNG passes do not equate to an article if the SNG is subordinate to GNG and it clearly fails GNG. Delete.
169:
867:
argument is supported by ad homs against me that have no relevance to the discussion. Please remove them unless you would like me to find an independent admin at ANI to review them as personal attacks. Thanks.
795:
It was shown at the DRV that there was consensus at the original RFC that one of the points of evidence satisfied PORNBIO. It was also shown that no delete !vote presented evidence that the topic failed GNG.
297:
519:. So the post hasn't tried to post a delete argument. As per WP:N, GNG notability is no different than PORNBIO notability; so failing GNG, in the context here, is irrelevant anyway.
122:
330:
845:
A DRV dominated by vote counting is a roadmap for continued defiance of the rule of law? This DRV should be a call to action to restore the rule of law to
Knowledge (XXG).
240:"she passes policy, but delete anyway" is not a good argument. We decided to remove porn bios unless they had these awards, to change that, you have to change pornbio first.
163:
420:
Your argument here is an argument for deletion. You just admitted that the subject is not covered in reliable sources, which is exactly what is required to have an article.
262:
is a technical sng pass with no gng value and should be deleted? And if not, then why on this? We shouldn't pick and choose
Knowledge (XXG) policy for stuff we don't like.
387:), of Jewish porn stars. It sources her birth name and the fact that her father was a rabbi. I've inserted it. But I still don't think that gets us over the GNG hump.
733:
201:
829:: Those arguments were rejected all but unanimously by the other DRV participants. They're now pretty much a road map to insufficient support for notability claims.
954:. There is no significant coverage of her directly and this coverage is what largely defines GNG to us which in turn gives either subsequent inclusion or deletion.
473:
1066:
Some discussion of her personal sexual interests is not irrelevant in this field, but the extent of it , including the quotation, is promotional for her work.
605:
277:
multiple significant film roles to make an actor notable, it is beyond bizarre that a sportsperson can be notable with a passing performance in one game.
129:
602:
1062:
as not notable (and with promotional content). Of her three awards, two are explicitly for beginners, and that translates in WP terms as
95:
90:
99:
17:
184:
82:
151:
834:
686:
449:
810:
There were four major procedural errors in the RFC/AFD close identified at the DRV, none of which the DRV closer explained.
589:
710:
579:
AFD is not the appropriate place to try to change the notability guidelines, and nom acknowledges that subject satisfies
1096:
40:
145:
1041:
931:
830:
682:
212:
996:
Funny how those !voting Keep/Speedy Keep have nitpicked over the noms rationale but not one of them have provided
695:
Nb. I closed this discussion with a no consensus result, but per discussion on my talk page, I have re-opened it.
401:
Normally i'd agree but if you were to nominate unsourcable and impossible to write about which severely fails GNG
891:
850:
815:
801:
786:
771:
756:
665:
567:
549:
524:
502:
425:
384:
282:
141:
863:
497:
decision in coverage, and start removing articles on people who totally fail the general notability guidelines.
460:
541:
516:
445:
as best new starlet for avn is a well known and significant award as confirmed by prior consensus in AfDs for
1077:
1048:
1017:
987:
966:
938:
895:
871:
854:
838:
819:
805:
790:
775:
760:
741:
725:
701:
690:
669:
650:
633:
617:
593:
571:
553:
528:
506:
485:
481:
464:
429:
415:
396:
378:
355:
322:
286:
271:
249:
231:
219:
64:
191:
446:
86:
882:
1092:
1035:
925:
721:
697:
646:
392:
374:
206:
36:
452:
887:
846:
811:
797:
782:
767:
752:
661:
563:
545:
520:
498:
421:
278:
78:
70:
951:
920:
580:
442:
366:
456:
350:
317:
177:
974:
as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –
962:
477:
157:
831:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
683:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
923:. Passing porn actress, not particularly notable based on the article and the cited reports.
613:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1091:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
638:
455:. The sources support for two paragraphs of content. What more do we need to know about her?
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
642:
411:
388:
370:
267:
245:
947:
916:
628:-- for lack of reliable 3rd party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail (
1000:
sources to establish whether GNG or PORNBIO is met, Well they've not provided any because
52:. Of the four "keep"s, only one actually discusses reasons for notability and sourcing.
1005:
975:
334:
301:
55:
629:
1073:
958:
584:
402:
259:
868:
738:
609:
544:, "Knowledge (XXG) may contain content that some readers consider objectionable."
228:
116:
515:
This is a notability argument without analysis of the alternatives to deletion,
407:
263:
241:
383:
I found a mention of Naomi in a 2015 list, published by a Jewish news service (
1030:
1068:
1029:
Notability exists outside of the unsupported opinions of our editors.
200:
Note: This debate has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
1085:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
713:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
298:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
112:
108:
104:
176:
732:
Thank you NA1000 for reopening. I’d like to bring in
719:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
562:what is left? Speedy keep is the correct remedy.
190:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1099:). No further edits should be made to this page.
331:list of California-related deletion discussions
8:
472:Note: This debate has been included in the
329:Note: This debate has been included in the
296:Note: This debate has been included in the
474:list of Women-related deletion discussions
471:
328:
295:
199:
641:. It's a "delete" for me in this case.
601:Note: This debate has been added to the
202:list of content for rescue consideration
632:). Having participated in a number of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
946:This subject neither meets basic
1:
1078:18:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
1049:14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
1018:12:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
988:12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
967:09:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
896:12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
872:06:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
855:17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
839:12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
820:00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
806:00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
791:00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
776:00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
761:00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
220:15:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
65:19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
939:21:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
742:21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
726:13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
702:13:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
691:13:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
670:02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
651:23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
618:18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
594:17:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
572:15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
554:15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
529:15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
507:04:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
486:14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
465:22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
430:04:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
416:17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
397:17:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
379:16:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
356:12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
323:12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
287:04:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
272:12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
250:11:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
232:10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
1116:
385:Jewish Telegraphic Agency
1088:Please do not modify it.
734:The Drv for Lana Rhoades
32:Please do not modify it.
603:WikiProject Pornography
258:Would you argue that
864:User:Unscintillating
559:Speedy Keep WP:SK#1
781:been contacted.
728:
606:list of deletions
499:John Pack Lambert
488:
422:John Pack Lambert
358:
347:
325:
314:
279:John Pack Lambert
222:
63:
1107:
1090:
1047:
1037:7&6=thirteen
1015:
1010:
985:
980:
937:
927:7&6=thirteen
724:
718:
716:
714:
700:
620:
353:
348:
341:
320:
315:
308:
218:
208:7&6=thirteen
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1097:deletion review
1086:
1064:not yet notable
1034:
1011:
1006:
1002:there isn't any
981:
976:
924:
888:Unscintillating
847:Unscintillating
812:Unscintillating
798:Unscintillating
783:Unscintillating
768:Unscintillating
753:Unscintillating
729:
720:
709:
707:
696:
662:Unscintillating
600:
592:
564:Unscintillating
546:Unscintillating
521:Unscintillating
351:
340:
335:
318:
307:
302:
205:
137:
128:
93:
79:Naomi (actress)
77:
74:
71:Naomi (actress)
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1113:
1111:
1102:
1101:
1081:
1080:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1021:
1020:
991:
990:
969:
941:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
875:
874:
858:
857:
823:
822:
808:
793:
778:
763:
745:
744:
717:
706:
705:
704:
693:
675:
674:
673:
672:
654:
653:
622:
621:
597:
596:
588:
574:
556:
542:WP:NOTCENSORED
534:
533:
532:
531:
517:WP:IGNORINGATD
510:
509:
490:
489:
468:
467:
457:Morbidthoughts
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
418:
360:
359:
336:
326:
303:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
253:
252:
224:
223:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1112:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1050:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1009:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
993:
992:
989:
986:
984:
979:
973:
970:
968:
964:
960:
957:
953:
950:nor specific
949:
945:
942:
940:
935:
934:
929:
928:
922:
918:
915:Doesn't meet
914:
911:
910:
897:
893:
889:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
870:
865:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
825:
824:
821:
817:
813:
809:
807:
803:
799:
794:
792:
788:
784:
779:
777:
773:
769:
764:
762:
758:
754:
749:
748:
747:
746:
743:
740:
735:
731:
730:
727:
723:
722:North America
715:
712:
703:
699:
698:North America
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
676:
671:
667:
663:
658:
657:
656:
655:
652:
648:
644:
640:
635:
631:
627:
624:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
599:
598:
595:
591:
586:
582:
578:
575:
573:
569:
565:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
536:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
508:
504:
500:
495:
494:Strong delete
492:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:Coolabahapple
475:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
448:
447:Abella Danger
444:
440:
437:
431:
427:
423:
419:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:Mickey Murray
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
362:
361:
357:
354:
349:
346:
345:
339:
332:
327:
324:
321:
316:
313:
312:
306:
299:
294:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:Mickey Murray
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
221:
216:
215:
210:
209:
203:
198:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1087:
1084:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1042:
1036:
1026:
1012:
1007:
1001:
997:
982:
977:
971:
955:
943:
932:
926:
912:
883:WP:PERPOLICY
826:
708:
678:
625:
576:
558:
537:
493:
438:
363:
343:
342:
337:
310:
309:
304:
237:
225:
213:
207:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
643:K.e.coffman
577:Speedy keep
453:Gracie Glam
450:Mia Malkova
389:David in DC
371:David in DC
164:free images
1031:Ipse dixit
952:WP:PORNBIO
921:WP:PORNBIO
581:WP:PORNBIO
443:WP:PORNBIO
367:WP:PORNBIO
58:Sandstein
1093:talk page
634:WP:PORBIO
610:• Gene93k
441:- Passes
37:talk page
1095:or in a
959:Ammarpad
711:Relisted
585:MShabazz
344:assiveYR
311:assiveYR
123:View log
39:or in a
1060:Delete.
1027:Comment
869:Spartaz
827:Comment
739:Spartaz
639:WP:WHYN
540:As per
538:Comment
229:Spartaz
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
972:Delete
948:WP:GNG
944:Delete
917:WP:GNG
913:Delete
679:Delete
626:Delete
408:GuzzyG
364:Delete
264:GuzzyG
242:GuzzyG
142:Google
100:delete
50:delete
1074:talk
1008:Davey
978:Davey
590:Stalk
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1013:2010
983:2010
963:talk
892:talk
851:talk
835:talk
816:talk
802:talk
787:talk
772:talk
757:talk
687:talk
666:talk
647:talk
630:WP:N
614:talk
583:. —
568:talk
550:talk
525:talk
503:talk
482:talk
461:talk
439:Keep
426:talk
412:talk
393:talk
375:talk
283:talk
268:talk
246:talk
238:Keep
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1069:DGG
1033:?
1004:. –
998:any
919:or
192:TWL
121:– (
1076:)
965:)
894:)
853:)
837:)
818:)
804:)
789:)
774:)
759:)
689:)
668:)
649:)
616:)
608:.
570:)
552:)
527:)
505:)
484:)
476:.
463:)
428:)
414:)
395:)
377:)
333:.
300:.
285:)
270:)
248:)
204:.
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1072:(
1046:)
1043:☎
1040:(
961:(
956:—
936:)
933:☎
930:(
890:(
849:(
833:(
814:(
800:(
785:(
770:(
755:(
685:(
664:(
645:(
612:(
587:/
566:(
548:(
523:(
501:(
480:(
459:(
424:(
410:(
391:(
373:(
352:♠
338:M
319:♠
305:M
281:(
266:(
244:(
217:)
214:☎
211:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.